In the first half of the 19th century various fur companies trapped and traded with Indians in the US west. I am not familiar with with the various companies but the companies were probably chartered, if at all, in various states of the United States instead of being chartered by the federal government.
For example, the partnership of Bent, St Vrain & Company (1830-1849), a trading business headquartered in St. Louis and thus chartered in Missouri if anywhere, traded in the USA, Texas, and Mexico and built Bent's Old Fort in Colorado as a fur trading post by 1834 at the latest, and had other trading posts like Adobe Walls and Fort St. Vrain.
The American Fur Company (1808-1847) of John Jacob Astor, headquartered in New York City, rose to have almost a monopoly of fur trading in the United States and the Oregon Country and traded as far as China. It was likely to be charted in New York State if anywhere.
Medieval merchants in various cities in the Holy Roman Empire and other countries organized themselves into the Hanseatic League to promote their interests, a league that became so powerful it sometimes fought wars against countries that included some of the Hanseatic cities. The Hanseatic cities didn't need to be independent countries to have successful international trade and even to fight against some of the countries that contained Hanseatic cities.
A company successful in national and international trade does not have to be chartered by an independent national government. It can be chartered - if chartered at all - by a dependent governmental unit.
Furthermore, your statements that:
the Dutch State gained independence after the Thirty Year's War in 1648
The war ends in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia and the German States along with the Dutch gained independence.
Which are such drastic over simplifications that they can be considered lies.
The United Provinces fought against the kingdom of Spain.
But the United Provinces were never part of the kingdom of Spain. Instead the King of Spain was also the Duke of Brabant, Count of Holland, etc. etc. ruling the 17 counties, lordships, and duchies of the Netherlands in personal union with each other and in personal union with the kingdom of Spain and also with the Kingdom of Sicily, the other Kingdom of Sicily, the Kingdom of Sardinia, etc. etc.
A personal Union is when two territories, usually monarchies, have the same head of state and/or head of government. One modern example is France and Andorra, where the French President is one of the two co-Princes and heads of state of Andorra in a personal union. Another modern example of a personal union is the way Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom, of Canada, of Australia, of New Zealand, and of a dozen other countries I don't remember, in a personal union.
It is also possible for a personal union to be between independent countries and dependent territories within independent countries. For example, in 1648 the elected Holy Roman Emperor was also the hereditary King of Bohemia, Duke of Silesia, Margrave of Moravia, etc., Archduke of Austria, Duke of Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, etc. etc. within the Holy Roman Empire (thus making him his own overlord many times over) and King of Hungary, Croatia, etc. outside the Holy Roman Empire, all in personal union.
So the provinces of the Netherlands, including the United Provinces that revolted against the King of Spain, were not part of the Kingdom of Spain but were in personal union with the Kingdom of Spain. And the provinces of the Netherlands, including the United Provinces that revolted against the King of Spain, were not independent countries but were fiefdoms within the Kingdom of Germany that was part of the Holy Roman Empire.
So the King of Spain was the head of government of all the provinces of the Netherlands until the United Provinces revolted against him, and also the head of state of all the provinces of the Netherlands until the United Provinces revolted against him. But the King of Spain was only the head of state in the County of Holland, for example, in a local and subordinate sense.
Just as the governor of a state like Pennsylvania in the United States is the head of state of that state, but only in a local and subordinate sense, with the President of the United States of America the supreme head of state in every state of the Union, so the King of Spain was the local and subordinate head of state in each province of the Netherlands, with the Holy Roman Emperor the supreme head of state in every province of the Netherlands.
In 1648 King Philip IV of Spain gave up his claim to rule the United Provinces of the Netherlands and granted the United Provinces independence - independence from himself and his heirs. He gave up his claim to be the local and subordinate head of government and head of state of the United Provinces, because that was all he was legally capable of granting to them.
IMHO Emperor Ferdinand III was the supreme head of state in the United Provinces before 1648 and as far as I can tell he remained the supreme head of state in the United Provinces after 1648.